Rotec 2800 question

[John Kramer]

Though I've recently been leaning toward the Rotax 912s, based on
discussions here, I've returned to drooling over the radial Rotec.

Does anyone have experience with this engine, on or off a Rebel?

I know I'd sacrifice considerable weight, but I keep wondering if the COOL
factor along with the sound of a radial wouldn't be worth it?

Would performance, reliability, or economy disappoint?

John...

P.S. If I could get the guys here in Missouri who make (?) the HCI to get
reasonable on price I'd be sorely tempted to try one of theirs; even though
I'd be testing a complete unknown. At least its light weight.





-----------------------------------------------------------------
List archives located at: https://mail.dcsol.com/login
username "rebel" password "builder"
Unsubscribe: rebel-builders-unsubscribe@dcsol.com
List administrator: mike.davis@dcsol.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------

[Rick Harper]

G'day John !

The new OZ ... (Australian ) agent for the Rebel is in the process
of fitting one to his Rebel ......

( and I am SERIOUSLY considering removing the IO-320 I just fitted - and
fitting the soon to be released 9 cylinder 150 HP version )

I have seen a similar plane to a Rebel - flying recently at a fly - in
.... and it looks & sounds FABULOUS ...

I'm CCing this to Rod (the new Murphy agent) so you two can talk


Gotta rune for now (it's 4.30 AM here) and I have to be across town !

Rick Harper
541R


----- Original Message -----
From: John Kramer
To: rebel-builders@dcsol.com
Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2005 4:35 AM
Subject: Rotec 2800 question


Though I've recently been leaning toward the Rotax 912s, based on
discussions here, I've returned to drooling over the radial Rotec.

Does anyone have experience with this engine, on or off a Rebel?

I know I'd sacrifice considerable weight, but I keep wondering if the
COOL
factor along with the sound of a radial wouldn't be worth it?

Would performance, reliability, or economy disappoint?

John...

P.S. If I could get the guys here in Missouri who make (?) the HCI to
get
reasonable on price I'd be sorely tempted to try one of theirs; even
though
I'd be testing a complete unknown. At least its light weight.





-----------------------------------------------------------------
List archives located at: https://www.dcsol.com/login?mode=HTML
username "rebel" password "builder"
Subscription services located at:
https://www.dcsol.com/public/code/html-subscribe.htm
List administrator: mike.davis@dcsol.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------







-----------------------------------------------------------------
List archives located at: https://mail.dcsol.com/login
username "rebel" password "builder"
Unsubscribe: rebel-builders-unsubscribe@dcsol.com
List administrator: mike.davis@dcsol.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------

[IAN DONALDSON]

G'day John

Greetings from Australia.

I was at a fly in recently and an aircraft similar to the Rebel was flying
with a Rotec engine and as you say the rotary has a certain appeal. The
exhaust note takes some beating!

However I never did get the performance figures, but it appeared that it did
not go any better than my Rebel which is fitted with the Rotax 912S. When I
was building my Rebel I looked at the Rotec, but chose the Rotax 912S
because it has a proven service history and thousands must be in service
around the world. Whilst the Rotec certainly has some appeal the additional
complexity of the engine and its unproven history steered me towards the
Rotax. Seven cylinders and 2800cc and it only makes 110 hp!

I guess the major factor in me ultimately choosing the Rotax was that I did
not want an experimental plane and an experimental engine in it!

I have been greatly pleased with the economy, reliability and performance of
the Rotax and in my opinion it is the better option.


Regards

Ian Donaldson




-----------------------------------------------------------------
List archives located at: https://mail.dcsol.com/login
username "rebel" password "builder"
Unsubscribe: rebel-builders-unsubscribe@dcsol.com
List administrator: mike.davis@dcsol.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------

[Drew Dalgleish]

Hi Ian I'm sure you're right about it's performance. It's quite a bit
heavier than the rotax and I'm sure there's a drag penalty as well. I think
the low power for the displacement is because it turns so much slower than
the rotax. It's a really cool engine though and I just emailed them asking
for more info on the 150hp 9 cylinder model.

At 11:37 PM 4/28/2005 +1000, you wrote:

G'day John

Greetings from Australia.

I was at a fly in recently and an aircraft similar to the Rebel was flying
with a Rotec engine and as you say the rotary has a certain appeal. The
exhaust note takes some beating!

However I never did get the performance figures, but it appeared that it did
not go any better than my Rebel which is fitted with the Rotax 912S. When I
was building my Rebel I looked at the Rotec, but chose the Rotax 912S
because it has a proven service history and thousands must be in service
around the world. Whilst the Rotec certainly has some appeal the additional
complexity of the engine and its unproven history steered me towards the
Rotax. Seven cylinders and 2800cc and it only makes 110 hp!

I guess the major factor in me ultimately choosing the Rotax was that I did
not want an experimental plane and an experimental engine in it!

I have been greatly pleased with the economy, reliability and performance of
the Rotax and in my opinion it is the better option.


Regards

Ian Donaldson

Drew





-----------------------------------------------------------------
List archives located at: https://mail.dcsol.com/login
username "rebel" password "builder"
Unsubscribe: rebel-builders-unsubscribe@dcsol.com
List administrator: mike.davis@dcsol.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------

[IAN DONALDSON]

G'day again

They have a neat web site that has a lot of detail on the engines. Quite
interesting really.

Good luck on your choice. The Rebel would look neat with one on the nose but
the Rotax is still the one for me!

Regards

Ian

Hi Ian I'm sure you're right about it's performance. It's quite a bit
heavier than the rotax and I'm sure there's a drag penalty as well. I
think
the low power for the displacement is because it turns so much slower than
the rotax. It's a really cool engine though and I just emailed them asking
for more info on the 150hp 9 cylinder model.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
List archives located at: https://mail.dcsol.com/login
username "rebel" password "builder"
Unsubscribe: rebel-builders-unsubscribe@dcsol.com
List administrator: mike.davis@dcsol.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------

[bransom]

For radial power interest, if you can wait a bit there is the Gesoco R-263.
George from Gesoco had said on this list previously that production of the
125hp version could be first quarter 2006. Empty weight looks excellent and
the M-14 heritage bodes well. See
http://www.gesoco.com/engines/r263/r263.html
-Ben /496R

G'day again

They have a neat web site that has a lot of detail on the engines. Quite
interesting really.

Good luck on your choice. The Rebel would look neat with one on the nose

but

the Rotax is still the one for me!

Regards

Ian

Hi Ian I'm sure you're right about it's performance. It's quite a bit
heavier than the rotax and I'm sure there's a drag penalty as well. I
think
the low power for the displacement is because it turns so much slower than
the rotax. It's a really cool engine though and I just emailed them asking
for more info on the 150hp 9 cylinder model.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
List archives located at: https://mail.dcsol.com/login
username "rebel" password "builder"
Unsubscribe: rebel-builders-unsubscribe@dcsol.com
List administrator: mike.davis@dcsol.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------

[George Coy]

Reference our five cylinder radial:

We plan to offer the 125 Hp version first. The Engine was planned to have a
planetary drive system and a fixed supercharger at a later date. The
necessary space is included in the original design.
It is our intention to get the 125 direct drive version flying and then
evaluate the market. Our initial contract with the factory is for a joint
venture to produce three engines. The first is to be a non-running version
to determine the mechanical dimensions and for display. This is the engine
we had at Sun-N-Fun.
The second engine is to be made for testing. It is planned to be
running in June. The time depends on how long it takes to get the forgings
for the basic steel parts. (crankshaft, connecting rods etc.) It will be
used for the life testing on the test stand. We plan to run it for several
hundred hours. It will be disassembled and inspected periodically during
that period to check on wear and stress.
The third engine will be for flight testing.
After we finish these three engines, if we feel the market is there, we
will have dies made up and produce forgings for the rest of the major parts.
We choose to do it this way as we feel that forgings produce a stronger
engine than one machined out of billet.
The next step will be to make the geared version. We will probably use
the number two engine to developed this. We plan to make it 150 hp. We have
not decided on the gear ratio as yet. That will again depend on the market.
It seems some of the market wishes for a 150 hp engine that will turn in the
2500 rpm range to utilize existing metal props. There are others like you
who desire a lower prop speed so that they can run a longer prop like the
antique aircraft. We have yet to make this decision.
Finally we plan to developed a 180 hp version by adding a fixed
supercharger. It will also give better altitude performance.
We feel that there is a clear advantage to our approach. Most of the
experimental aircraft engines today are small bore and depend on high rpm to
produce the horse power. This approach does not produce the kid of torque
that is traditionally associated with aircraft engines. There is little that
can beet cubic inches when it come to horse power!
Please keep in touch. We are not always so good at updating our web
site, but that is where the updates will appear.

George Coy
President
Gesoco Industries Inc.
629 Airport Rd.
Swanton, VT 05488
TEL 802-868-5633
FAX 802-868-4465
Web Site www.gesoco.com
e-mail George@gesoco.com
Franklin County Airport (KFSO)






-----------------------------------------------------------------
List archives located at: https://mail.dcsol.com/login
username "rebel" password "builder"
Unsubscribe: rebel-builders-unsubscribe@dcsol.com
List administrator: mike.davis@dcsol.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------